The missing Founding
Creator? The Supreme Court got Him:
As presently defined, there
is
no
such
thing
as Constitutional
"separation
of church and state" in America

The
concept in quotes, above, does not exist in the U.S. Constitution or
its amendments. It is an invention by lawyers.

The First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, among other things
like free speech and a free press: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." Do you see the words "separation of
church and state" in that sentence?

What, then, is going on here?
Well, a very famous version of the U.S. Supreme Court, able to speak
out of both sides of its group judicial mouth, many decades back
decided that when the Founding Fathers were talking about establishment of religion, they
actually meant references
to or connection with God.

Any reference and any connection.

If the First Amendment had said "establishment of a religion" (if they
had added that "a"), things might not have gotten all twisted up.
But, in truth, even that might not have been enough. Probably,
the Founding Fathers should have said "establishment of an official
state or federally approved religion or church."

That would have stopped the criminal disfiguration. The
pettyfoggers wouldn't have found a way to stab the amendment in the
heart.

This sort of thing can drive a man crazy, but these are descriptive
structures which are important to lawyers.
Lawyers become judges. The laws of America from the U.S.
Constitution to local statutes are defined by courts. If the
wording of a a document will let them at your
basic rights and freedoms, they'll use it. Leaving out that
little "a" was like leaving the back door unlocked. The lawyers
got in and stole the family treasure.

Translating ancient
tongues into today's English

What does
"establishment of religion" mean, and why did the Founding Fathers word
the idea in that way?

Well, the
majority of their ancestors came from Europe. England,
France, Germany, etc. In those places in those days religious
freedom was either repressed or against the law. Try building a
Christian church, or even holding a Christian meeting, in even the most
isolated areas of most Middle-Eastern nations today and you will
understand.

There was
the official state religion approved by the king, and that
was it. When you put money in the collection plate, the government got
a piece of the action. That is
the reason the word "establishment" appears in that quote up
above. If you would like it in modern English, try:

"Congress shall make
no law which creates an official national church."

A national religion was created in England when Henry VIII wanted to
get a divorce, and the Pope of the Roman Catholic church wouldn't let
him do it. Henry said, "Okay, if the Catholic Church won't let me
get rid of my wife, then I'll create an English church that will."

Thus, the official religion (church) there became the "Church of
England." The Catholic Church was suddenly, like Christianity in
Iran, today, a dangerous religion to practice. The Pilgrims didn't come
to the New World to be free of
God. They came here to be free to worship the God their church
believed in.

No "Church of America"

It says "In God we trust" on the dollar bill. That, compared to
the Constitution, is a much newer piece of business. When they
did that, were they violating Original Intent?

Well, who
were
the Founding Fathers? Were they atheists? Did they wish no
religious connections to the government they had in mind? Of
course not. Look at the Declaration of Independance. All
men
are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain
inalienable rights. Look at the oaths of office they
wrote.
Look at the speeches they made. Look at the walls of the Supreme
Court, for God's Sake. Their non-sectarian God is everywhere.

Separation
of
church
and
state
is liberal claptrap -- a kind of legal spin that equates the term
"god" with the term "church" to achieve their political goal.
What is that goal? It's a process which is aimed at eliminating
the
wall hook from which the Constitution hangs. Get rid of God, and
guess where your fundamental rights originate, then.

God's rules cannot be changed by legislative manipulation or executive
fiat. But, rights which come from government are a very different
thing. They can
be changed by government.

Liberals
worship government. Liberal judges from liberal law
schools like Harvard infest the U.S. Supreme Court. As described
earlier in this text, judges like
that bypassed original intent
with subsequent rulings on this subject. It is called
"legislation by judicial fiat." (Creating law without going
through the legislative branch -- in this case, Congress.) The
arrogance of
progressives is without
limit. You should get rid of as many of them as you can in the
next election -- particularly in the U.S. Senate. That's where
presidential Supreme Court nominees get the thumbs up or thumbs
down.

I repeat: There
is
no
such
thing
as
the separation of church and state, where
"church" is a legal synonym for "god." All that's in
the
Constitution is a denial of the government's ability to force you to
worship in an official government church. That's the "separation of
church and state" the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Much of the U.S.
Constitution is about this kind of thing -- what the government is not
allowed to do.

The U.S.
Constitution is a document whose most important contents puts
handcuffs on government. It didn't create a government as much as
it
created limits on the concept of government. The colonists feared
government, and with good reason. Unshackled from limitations,
all government travels in one direction, only: towards increasing power
over its citizens. Towards one degree or another of controlling
the lives and property of those citizens.

That's why
the Founding Fathers made it un-constitutional for Congress
to create an official state church, then infused our original documents
with their generic God. They knew what would happen if their and
your rights didn't come from a source above those in positions of
legal, official, statutory power.

They had
lived their entire lives under a government which had no
limitations, and didn't like the experience one bit.

(LL --
this piece is an updated revision of a former editorial in the
magazine. Some people didn't understand the point, so I'm giving
it another try, here.)